Let's
welcome Benjamin Bayart, chairman at French Data Network (FDN), which
is a non-profit internet service provider, founded in the early
1990s. That makes it the oldest French ISP 1,
commercial and non-profit altogether.

Benjamin
has been FDN's chairman since 1997. His professional experience, both
in the technical and organizational fields, has given him a deep
understanding of networks, and, more relevantly, the Internet.

He
will converse with us tonight about the evolutions he's been in the
position to witness, in this conference titled "Who Seeks
Control Over The Internet ?"

Speaker
Benjamin Bayart :

Since
you’ve introduced me so well, let me stress a point here...

In
those ancient times, back in 1992, and as far as internet operators
are concerned, non-profit organizations were rather the norm –
as opposed to the exception they've become today.

Only
later, merchants saw there an opportunity for business. But, back
then, organizations like ours were created to provide a service no
one else would. We and others wanted something unavailable, so we
banded together in order to set up what we needed.

Such
an approach still seems utterly normal to free 2
software people today, but completely unnatural to everyone else :
the notion that you could actually move your butt to get what you
want.

Just
so I know who I'm talking to, who's here because of my other
conference « Minitel
2.0 » ?
Ok, about half of you. 3

Let
me explain why I am here. Christophe here asked me to come and give a
speech at the INRIA's local branch, earlier today. It was a private
event, and if I was to do it, I also wanted to speak to you, free
software people. You see, I'm doing this for free, and the least I
expect in return is for my usual audience to be able to come and hear
me.

So
I gave a rather technical speech this morning, titled « Who
Controls The Internet ? » –
similar title, but different topic. I will now summarize it in a
quick introduction.

Then
we'll talk about the HADOPI bill 4,
and why it is so controversial. Then on to the concept of network
neutrality. Then we'll badmouth obsolete industries –
then badmouth newer ones as well. Then we'll discuss public speech a
bit, and then the conlusion.

I
expect all this to take about 90 minutes. 75 minutes if I get
stressed, 2 hours if you ask many questions.

Even
though the Internet is a centerless network, not managed from a
central point of authority – I
mean, the Internet is not one central network to which all operators
connect. The Internet is the web resulting from all operators
connecting with each other. No operator is more central than any
other.

However,
a few technical aspects require basic regulation. A simple example :
Two machines in the world can't have the same address 5,
or the whole thing wouldn't work. Just like you can't have two phone
suscribers with the same phone number... It wouldn't work.

There
are several bodies that deal with such issues. Here are some :

The
ICANN, a Californian non-profit organization, is the reference authority. They
set the rules for distributing, of the Internet's resources, those
which are limited. They set the rules for IP-address attribution,
domain names 6,
etc. Occasionally they arbitrate disputes around these matters.

The
IANA is the ICANN's armed wing. They do the technical work, according
to the ICANN's rules. When someone needs an IP-address block (any
amount of consecutive addresses), or an AS-number 7
allowing them to become an internet operator (of which there are
about 60,000 today), the IANA is the allocating authority.

The
IANA delegates regionally, to the ARIN for North America, the APINC
for Pacific Asia, the LACNIC for South America, the RIPE for Europe,
the AfriNIC for Africa, etc. They, in turn, delegate to smaller
structures, the Local Internet Registries, of which there must be
somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000.

What
is important to remember here ? That these people, who have actual
control over the Internet (they're the closest thing to a center, if
you insist on looking for one), carry their control out on a strictly
technical level. When they make sure each IP-address gets attributed
only once, their concerns are of an exclusively technical nature.
Whether you use your address in a way that suits your local
government, or whether local ISPs are bound to censoring by law, is
not their concern. They don't care whether you use the network
lawfully. They care whether the network works.

And
they do everything necessary for it to work. Their job is to manage
the scarcer resources, to make everything that needs to be unique
unique – and it all runs rather smoothly.

For
example, we've heard a lot about the Internet growing so rapidly that
it's about to collapse... There isn’t one bit of truth in that.
If you read the ICANN and IANA's memos, you'll see that they always
plan at least five years ahead. The running out of available
IP-addresses, which should occur within the next two years if we keep
allocating them as massively as we do (which isn't surprising, since
there are only 4 billion possible addresses for 2 billion Internet
users, and considering entire blocks are reserved for structural
reasons), has been addressed when I was still a student –
and I graduated in 1996. So the collapse of the Internet is a mostly
unfounded rumor, because
these people do their job well.

It
is highly worth noting that these are non-profit organizations.

They
don't answer to shareholders, and almost as little to governments.

There
is some influence from the US government, but quite negligible. The
few official representatives only sit at the ICANN's board, which
sets the rules. Remember : Those rules are strictly technical. I have
been around political figures for a while now, and I'm still to meet
one who wants to discuss IP attribution, compare BGP versions, or
worry about whether IPv6 is more apt than IPv4 – seriously,
they don't give a damn.

Since
these organizations are politically independent, and spread around
the whole world, they manage to stay trans-governmental. It is a bit
as if they were a branch of the United Nations, except that if they
were, it would be a mess : all governments would realize the
importance of the issues, and politicians would claim their say... So
every time Iran would say something, the USA would feel obligated to
say the opposite, then Israel would get pissed off in between... The
usual mess.

By
managing to stay between themselves, engineers successfully kept
their focus on what they were doing, discarding irrelevant bias. This
functional model ressembles the Bazaar 8,
a concept known to free software developers : The idea is that
whoever does a thing is presumably right about it. It is a very
democratic way. Not everyone votes: only when you do something, then
you have a say about it.

I'll
give you an example : Would I, an ISP, be unhappy about the way
IP-addresses are allocated in Europe, my feedback to the RIPE is very
welcome. In fact, they invite us (like, please
do come !) to conferences and working sessions, every other
month. Yet, of the nearly 15,000 European operators, usually less
than 10 go. Needless to say, if you come a few times in a row, you'll
be spotted as involved in the matter, and listened to.

That's
just like the free software mentality : has their say whoever gets
involved. 9

So,
that's who controls the Internet, and how. That control
was always purely technical, and very well done. (Sure, it's not
perfect. There are a few unpleasant practices – the domain name
business, to name one – but most of it is managed excellently.)

I
spoke about this at length this morning, but I think this summary
will suffice now.

Let's
first remind those of you who would have kept away from the news for
the whole last year what HADOPI 4 is. 10

The
idea is simple : to stop children from downloading artists to death,
we're gonna let the majors keep a close watch on our networking
habits, so they can spot whoever shares music. Then when those
corporate entities spot someone, they can report them to an
Independent High Administrative Authority (a very fashionable
concept, these days), which can, among several powers, ask the ISP
who the perpetrator is, and then, if the latter commits the same
offence again, cut them off the Internet, thus putting an end to the
online slaughter of artists.

That
was the draft's spirit. That's the law Denis Olivennes sold Nicolas
Sarkozy 11
under the name accord
de l'Élysée.

They
went gaily, nobody around understanding or caring. Moreover, it
seemed to make sense : if you misbehave, you get cut off, just
like brats are cut off TV.
Easy.

With
such a text, that didn't seem, at first glance, too painful, they
still managed to get barred by the Constitutional Council, based on
various stuff, among which : article 11 of the 1789 Declaration of
Rights of Man and Citizen !

They
didn't get opposed a subtle or obscure article of the civil code, see
? The opposed argument was plain and simple.

So
what does article 11 of the 1789 Declaration of Rights of Man say ?

"The
free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious
rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and
print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this
freedom as shall be defined by law."

It
is the article defining freedom of speech.

I
remember that, except for a few possible teenager's fits, I never
accused my parents of denying me freedom when they would cut me off
TV.
And I'm pretty sure no one else would have told my parents they were
violating article 11 of the 1789 Declaration !

So
what's just happened ?

How
does something supposed to cut brats off TV
end up being rejected by the Constitutional Council (I mean, the
Constitutional Council is not exactly a bunch of liberal
lefties...!), based on the Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen ?

I'll
spare you the verbatim legal mentions 12 to 19 from the Council's
decision, and give you two paragraphs from their press release that
are not too jibberish – I hope lawmen will forgive this
simplification :

Freedom
of communication and speech, as defined in article 11 of the 1789
Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen, is constantly upheld as
protective case law by the Constitutional Council. [...] Such freedom
implies today, in view of the generalized development of the
Internet, and its importance as a medium for participating in
democracic society and expressing ideas and opinions, freedom of
accessing those services allowing for online public communication.

Here,
the Constitutional Council has asserted that the Internet is not just
TV.
They've asserted that the Internet is a tool for democracy.

(I've been passing for a fool,
trying to say just that for the last two years !)

The
next paragraph is interesting :

Now,
articles 5 and 11 of the proposed law gave governement agency HADOPI
disciplinary powers allowing them to limit or suppress an entitled
user's access to the Internet. Hence, such powers could lead to limit
any person's right to communicate and express themselves freely. In
such case, the legislator cannot, regardless of any guarantee
addressing propriety of sanction, leave such powers in the hands of an
administrative authority for the sole purpose of protecting copyright
owners' interests. Such powers can only fall to a judge.

Are
there lawyers in the room ?
So let me make this clear. What the Constitutional Council reminded
us is that, in law, there's a simple, basic principle :
Only a judge can take your freedom away.

What
other example of taking a man's freedom away do we know ? Prison.
(We don't cleave people to death anymore, though that pretty much took
freedom away too...) That you don't send a man to jail without running
him in front of a judge is about common sense today – a
couple of days in police custody infringes to this, but that's the
only exception.

Hence,
what the Constitutional Council said is that the government, all
innocent, while pretending to discipline children, was about to
curtail some of our fundamental liberties !

The
issue is not whether children listen to music correctly anymore.

It
is a whole different scope.

Not
just because we, opposers to the bill, say so. Also and mainly
because the Constitutional Council has said so.

Had
we fought for adding Internet access to basic rights in the
constitution, all would have laughed in our faces – and rightly so, too,
since it's already been in there for centuries !

Now,
let’s try to understand what this means. We’re all
vaguely aware Internet issues are important, but why are
they important ? How does it translate practically ?

There’s
one criteria the Council hasn’t grasped the importance of yet :
network neutrality – for a reason :
it’s tediously technical.

So,
what does the network’s neutrality mean, and how can I explain
it to you without getting too technical ? (I am aware, from the
average age in this room, that most of you must be computer guys, but
I’d like to give you arguments you can use at dinner
tonight, would you find them valid.)

First
argument :

While
a message can be considered problematic, the messenger cannot. You
don’t sentence a messenger because of the message they carry.
We’ve known that since ancient Greece.

A
second way of explaining network neutrality could be : Postal
services don’t open mail.

Let
me elaborate. I’m not allowed every use of the mail services I could fancy.
For example, I may not mail cocaine to my friends,
or get cocaine mailed to me. Yet, mail services don’t open
mail. Regardless of the mail’s content, they don’t have
the right to open it. The authority entitled to do so is not them. It
is the customs.

That
would get even more problematic when mail operators get privatized :
then a commercial company would be required to enforce the law by
opening your private correspondance. That’s hard to picture.
Yet, on the Internet, all we have are private operators.

Still
We can also make a comparison with the telephone network.
Some uses of it are illegal. For example, you can’t harrass
people on the phone. Yet, the
phone company doesn’t enforce that law either. The police does.
The police can listen to a line, then find who the perpetrating
caller is. Sure, they do it through the phone company, but the phone
company won’t disclose anything without a police warrant,
issued by a judge.

Such
examples are useful to understand network neutrality. The key notion
is : Whatever
needs to be done is not for the network to do.

Neutrality
of the Internet, which is a very special network, entails other
issues :

As
you may have read in the press, the Internet is a network of
networks. What does it mean, besides a journalist’s fine word ?
It means that internet is just the common norm different networks
voluntarily agree upon when connecting with each other.

The
reason I, an FDN suscriber, can surf the personal website of an
Orange suscriber, is because Orange and FDN, without consulting each
other directly, agreed on the way of connecting their networks
together. In fact, there isn’t even a direct connection. There
are several networks in between, and all, without
being bound to it by law,
agree on the same norm.

Every
one agrees on respecting the ICANN’s rules : every one
agrees that they can’t use IP-addresses that were not allocated
to them by the IANA, et caetera.

The
Internet is the networks’ network. That everyone agrees on
respecting the same rules is fundamental, lest it would be the end of
that network. 12

The
Internet being that network of networks, it is by definition
centerless. There is no central operator through which all traffic is
routed. The strictly opposed kind is the star
network :
one central server to which peripheral terminals connect 13.
Each terminal is connected to that one and only main computer (the
server), and can’t connect to more. The Internet is not like that :
nothing is central.

Let’s
look at this another way again :

A
conventional network is intelligent, and serves passive terminals.

Grandpa's
landline phone is a typical example of that. You know that Bakelite
device, with its big rotary dial ? It's
an amazingly stupid device. It contains no computer part –
its complexity is about null. The whole and only intelligence
involved is the network's.

Did
you know that requesting a number is achieved by just interrupting
the line ?
You can request a number even without spinning the dial : depress the
switch hook 3 times quickly to dial the number 3... You don't even
actually need the dial.

The
network is so clever that it understands what number you mean from
mere line interruptions, allowing for domestic devices so stupid they can’t
even read their own « keyboard » by
themselves ! 14

The
Internet is just the opposite : The network is an idiot. It doesn't
understand what it does, and doesn't have to. It just carries data
from one point to another. Data packets are labelled with their
destination address, and that's all the network needs to know or
cares about.

Intelligence
is peripheral : when you surf the web, the intelligence resides in
your browser (rendering pages) and the server (sending you each page content
you request). The network between both is about as dumb as a water
pipe. That's all we expect from it –
It must not do more.

This
means your browser and the server can swap roles at any time. You may
not know this, but, today, any one of you could install their own web
server at home. There's no reason not to host your personal website
on your own computer. (Well, except for those of you who turn it off
at night, of course.)

The
network is structurally, entirely symmetrical. Which makes sense,
since it doesn't know what it carries : It sees a data packet coming from
you to a web server, and then, what a coincidence, another one
coming from the server back your way a few milliseconds later... Can
it tell who requests from who responds ? It doesn't care. It just
carries. Just like postal services are unable to tell, from a mere
exchange of mail, which party's asking questions from which is
answering. For them, it is just mail exchange. Symmetrical.

Ok,
let’s summarize this :

A
common network, doing about nothing, was the simplest possible
agreement between parties when connecting their networks one to each
other.

This
means, neutrality is the very definition of internet : The
Internet is, by definition, the neutral network all have agreed upon,
in order to connect with one another.

To
dispense with the Internet's neutrality is to dispense with the
Internet.

To
want an intelligent Internet is to want no Internet.

I
can't stress this point enough :

To
expect the network to solve any problem, through any
mean, is a mistake.

Hence,
expecting network operators to enforce laws is a
mistake. It is not their place to do that. Their place is to carry
packets.

*

Now,
is network neutrality a fundamental freedom ? Because the
Constitutional Council’s decision sure seems to lean that
way...

Well
– basically, no.

Network
neutrality is not a fundamental freedom in itself. But, as the
Council says, freedom of speech is. As we’ve known for 220
years, too. And they say freedom of speech relies on the network’s
neutrality. If the network is not neutral, if it acts as a filter,
then you’ve got limited access... and to limit your access is
an infrigement on a fundamental freedom.

Freedom
of information, just the same, relies on the network’s
neutrality. When the network isn’t neutral, you can’t
rely on the information you get.

The
reason you can be sure what you hear is what I say, is because the
air between us is neutral. You know you can rely on air to not
distort the message. At worst, it can alter the sound of my voice,
but not my words. Not changing a word makes it a neutral medium. You
know you can reasonably believe you’re hearing my words because
you know the medium is neutral.

If
someone here were repeating the words I would speak in another room,
then you could reasonably doubt you’re hearing my exact words.
You could think : This isn’t Benjamin’s phrasing – it’s too polite to be his...

There’s
yet one more freedom depending on network neutrality :
freedom of competition.

It
is
somewhat of a dirty word among us, but freedom
of choice
is what I really mean by it.

Freedom
of competition means I can buy a computer from a brand of my choice,
install it with software of my choice, connect it to the service
provider of my choice, and still access the same Internet as everyone
else.

I
must access the same Internet through Mac OS X running on an Apple
computer connected to Orange’s network, as through Linux
running on any other brand of computer connected through, say, FDN.

This
is most crucial : If we don’t all access the same Internet –
if, as Orange’s ads say, « there’s
internet and then there’s INTERNET »
– then there is no
Internet !

It’s
this simple. There’s no such thing as « freedom and
then freedom ».

There
is freedom on one hand, and on the other everything else.

I
don’t mean everything else to be necessarily unappealing. Some
people fantasy about handcuffs... Between consenting adults, why
not ?
But a network behaving as a modification of the Internet –
they say it’s modified for the better, sure ! They’re
selling it to you. They wouldn’t get far by claiming it’s
been modified for the worse. But a modified Internet is not
the Internet. It is... something else 16.
Actually, their great improvement of internet is most times just TV.

Freedom
of competition must mean freedom of choice.
It must mean that I can freely change operator, and remain free,
always, to access any service just the same.

Suppose
I’m not such a big fan of YouTube, because I like DailyMotion
better –
it is my right. Now if Orange strikes an exclusivity deal with
YouTube, then Orange suscribers could have their ability to post
videos on DailyMotion taken away.

The
network’s non-neutrality impairs competition.
It gives the already dominant parties leverage to extend their
position.

Non-neutrality
is a way to reject new competitors. If the major application service
providers strike deals with the major internet service providers, for
their services to get traffic priority and be carried in a swifter
way... Anybody coming up with one same service, only better (say it
now blinks and flashes, or any improvement serious enough to strike a
buzz),
would be very small at first, like, five guys in a garage. They
couldn’t make deals with majors. Hence, their new service
wouldn’t be carried in that a swift way. Hence, it wouldn’t
work well at the user’s end. They would thus have no fair
chance to grow.

I
don’t know who among you is old enough to remember the dawn of
Google. I am : before Google, the major search engine was
Altavista. Yahoo was slowly gnawing its way up the market... Then
Google came. Google was a handful of students’ project –
five guys in a garage.
How short a time did it take for them to smash all competition ?
Two, three years ? At max. Just because their service was
better. That can just not happen in a non-neutral network.

No
matter how big and mighty Google is today, anyone can still come up
with a better search engine, and go from nowhere to a decent position
in two years.

Finally,
this argument wouldn’t be complete without a discussion on
privacy issues.

Of
everything you post on the Internet, you obviously want some to
remain private. Now, you can only trust the network to uphold your
privacy. Would the network be given the ability to lie, how could I
be certain a picture –
say a picture of me and my neighbours’ little orgies, for which
I’d have every privacy setting checked and double-checked, just
to share among us, you know, like holiday pictures. Would the network
be prone to lying, then how can I be certain a picture that
appears private at my end won’t be made public at some other ?

How
can I be sure my demand for privacy is being met ? Sure, if I
try to see my pictures without confirming my identity, the network
will deny me access. But maybe someone else, somewhere else, will be
able to access them – if the network lies, how do I know ? I
can’t know if my mail is being read.

So,
while network neutrality isn’t a fundamental freedom, it is a
fundamental principle.

Just
like separation of powers – I
like this comparison : separation of powers is not a fundamental
freedom in itself. But it is a principle. A principle upon which
several fundamental freedoms rest.

Likewise, network
neutrality is a principle upon which some very fundamental freedoms
rest.

Freedom
of speech is a real issue.

It
doesn’t come as a shock that the countries requiring filtering
of the Internet are all notoriously non-democratic : China,
Iran, France... All
countries oblivious to Human Rights !

Yes,
France. I do have to mention it, since you can read in that HADOPI
bill we’ve been fighting, article 10 : filtering
of the Network.
In plain. The Constitutional Council didn’t reject that
article, but they castrated it in their typical fashion :
limiting it with an interpretative reservation. It’s their way
of saying « that law is acceptable only if understood this
way... » – and
the way is such that the article can’t come into effect.

Let
me insist once more on network neutrality :

The
freedom we’ve fought HADOPI for is not to download music. That
is not the issue. That is just the government’s fantasy. That
was Christine Albanel’s18 simplistic idea.
The real issue resides in the Constitutional Council’s
expressed concern : are we curtailing fundamental freedoms in
France ?

The
answer ?

A
majority of members of the Assemblée have voted in favor of
it, blindly. Three times.

First
time, it was rejected on a technicality. Second time, after both the
Assemblée Nationale and the Sénat had voted in favor,
it got rejected by the Constitutional Council. Out the door, back
through the window :
after a preliminary third
vote last July, they just passed it a few days ago.
The Contitutional Council will examine it soon.

That
is the real issue.

*

To
add perspective, note that Americans share this point of view :
the chairman at FCC (their federal regulator of communications), who
was given his position by President Obama to, among other duties,
watch over the network’s integrity, just stated last monday, in
his first and much awaited speech :

...I
feel better already, since it validates the conclusion of my 2007
conference 20, in which I assserted that internet will change society at
least as much as the printing press did.

Can
you see how major that is ?

The
Renaissance, that explosion of knowledge throughout the 15th
century, could not have occured without the printing press. Without
the renewal of ideas the press allowed for, no Renaissance. And
without Renaissance, no Enlightment philosophy. Yet, the Enlightment
philosophy is all modern democracy’s main source of
inspiration.

Big
chunks of that philosophy originated in France, like
Separation of Powers or Human Rights, which we don’t uphold too well
ourselves but were successfully spread to the USA. (Apparently, we
export more enlightment than we consume locally.)

The
way from invention of the printing press to our apogee of a modern,
scientific and technological society –
including democracy and freedom of the press –
has been a straight line.

It
all comes as a bundle. There are many other factors, but none of this
could have occured without the invention of the printing press –
a tool for spreading knownledge.

Now,
a regulating commission’s chairman is a rather stern figure,
not usually prone to lyrical digression.
So when someone like that says something like this... You can
appreciate the statement’s weight !

Let’s
have a look at the rest of his speech :

« Why
has the Internet proved to be such a powerful engine for creativity,
innovation, and economic growth ? A big part of the answer
traces back to one key decision by the Internet’s original
architects : to make the Internet an open system. »

Now
that we’ve set the background, we can try to answer the
question : Who
Seeks Control over The Internet ?

Obsolete
industries, for the most part.

When
When it comes to these industries, copyright – or, as we say in France, « author’s rights » 21 – is the major issue (the one HADOPI claims to address). For those of you not familiar with this : author’s rights apply to works of the mind.

I
don’t know about yours, but my mind doesn’t produce
paper. A work of the mind is essentially an idea. It is thus rather
immaterial.

Once
the idea has been materialized onto physical medium, you can market
that medium : a book, a DVD,
clothes (the idea being the tailor’s original cut) – you
name it. Any physical manifestation of an idea. One directly sees
that the real business resides in the making of physical objects.
There’s a good business for manufacturers. On the face, the
selling of books is mostly profitable to bookstores, paper merchants,
and the printing industry.

The
idea of author’s rights is to give a fraction of sales profit
back to the author : If I market a physical manifestation of
your mind’s work, I owe you a commission. Originally, the stuff
was come up with to protect playwrights’ interests from actors.
When theatre troupes earned money performing a play, they wouldn’t
spontaneously see why they should pay the author of the play. When
Beaumarchais is held as the inventor of author’s rights, that’s
what it’s all about : he expected returns from his work.

It
is also meant to protect writers from booksellers, for once the
latter have got a book printed, there would be no obvious reason for
them to pay the writer : the writer didn’t make the books
and doesn’t sell them.

The
idea was never to protect artists from their audience !
The idea was to protect artists from middlemen marketting their work.

HADOPI
takes place in a completely different context. When I share music
with my little sister, I don’t market it. I don’t get
money from her.

Now
that we’ve set the principle straight, you can see why the
copyright industry is at ill ease : we’re talking here
about works of the mind –
works that are in principle immaterial.

Only
40 years ago, the only way to spread a book across society was to
print it on physical sheets, all made of paper – parer made
from wood coming from real trees. Manufacturing was costly, transport
was costly, and storage was costly. It was a material economy. A
scarcity economy.

Do
you know the difference between a scarcity economy and an abundance
economy ? Scarcity economy is this : if
I sell my cake to you, I won’t have it anymore. While abundance
economy is this : if
I give you a lecture, I won’t have parted with any of my
knowledge as a result. This difference is fundamental.

Scarcity
economy is about material goods. Abundance economy is about knowledge
and ideas. A teacher giving a lecture does not sell his knowledge :
he still has it afterwards. A teacher isn’t more stupid after
giving a lecture than before. Maybe more tired 22,
but not more stupid – well, sometimes he’s depressed too,
depending on which kind of kids he has to endure.

This
must be understood : on the Internet, the manufacturing costs
are zero. This means that, all other factors equal, everybody will
pay the same price whether I copy a given song or not. We can share a
song, or not share it, either way won’t affect the price all
pay, because the manufacturing cost for every additional copy is
null.

Any
economist –
even an awful one –
knowing the basics of supply and demand, will note that, since :

1. manufacturing
costs are null,

2. supply
is unlimited (the network never stops), and

3. demand
is limited (because I can’t listen to music more than 24 hours
a day),

...
then the retail price must necessarily be null.

Do
the math : when the retail price is null, the
profit margin sucks.

Trying
to apply the rules of a scarcity economy (supply and demand,
manufacturing costs, etc.) to an abundance economy is vain. It just
can’t work.

So
copyright is a real issue. It must be redesigned.
We must abandon the delusion that it can keep resting upon a scarcity
economy.
It’s impossible.
It won’t work.

Which
parties are concerned ?

We
can sense a parallel with the printing press history...

Who
was concerned with the apparition of the printing press ?
All those poor copyist monks suddenly out of a job...

Now
who is concerned with the apparition of the Internet, and the fact
that we don’t need physical media to share works anymore ?
...Our poor DVD-copyist monks !

They
now have to quit scribbling work onto their little DVDs, and close
their retail churches :
it’s all become useless.

Who
else ?

Every
other body whose measure rests upon copyright.

Newspapers,
for instance, have a real problem. Because what you pay for, in a
newspaper, is paper. By far the most expensive part of a newspaper is
paper. Sure, the editorial staff gets paid too, but, in the end,
retail price depends mainly on paper price. If you take the selling
of paper away, what’s the monetary value of a newspaper ?
It can’t be based on a scarcity economy anymore. So they have
the exact same problem.

These
industries have been the first to take the fall – to take the
digital revolution in the face. There’s
been a few others, too weak to hope for protection, but these are the
ones who got kicked in the face first and hardest.
There will be others. And
when they are powerful, they will react agressively. Always.

It’s
systematic :
you can’t take the bread out somebody powerful’s mouth
and expect them to just sit and let it happen. Even
when they’re wrong. 23
Especially then.

How does it translate in real life ? Well, they
can be tempted in several ways :

1. Tax
content :
if the Internet is the gate to accessing something, and I detain
millions of suscribers (yeah, because you think you’re buying
your access to the Internet, hence that you have
access –
well, no. What you’ve done is sell your soul to an ISP. It
is not your
Internet service provider. You
are their
asset.)... If I decide to tax content broadcasters to let them
distribute their shit to you through me, they will pay. That’s
the first temptation. The temptation of behaving like a proprietary network :
I own the infrastructure, so, if you want passage, then pay. And I
set prices, since I have kind of a monopoly. For to detain millions
of suscribers is like a monopoly. 25

2. Tax services :
I can tax not only contents, but also services.

To
tax content, all I have to do is hop onto the copyright bus –
supposing HADOPI gets through. Yes, let’s fantasy for a
minute : this is not real life, this is a comedy. The HADOPI
Act is enforced, so instead of downloading music for free, you now
have to pay for it, a lot, and then you can play it only on approved
players, thanks to DRM 26.
When you try to play it on your second computer it doesn’t
work, when you try to play it in your car it works only if you’ve
paid for an extended licence supported by both your computer and your
car stereo (unlikely), ... Typically the obsolete industries’
dream. As you can see, as soon as we’re in this comedy,
everything gets much simpler. So content can be taxed.

But,
even without being in this comedy world, you should know that
operators regard commercial service providers as the ultimate cash
machine.

I’ve
been working at most French operators, and let me tell you this :
when my bosses saw that, while they were dealing with construction
and public works, civil engineering, holyshit-complex router
configurations, pulling optical fiber by the hundred miles, paying
engineers collossal wages, and all that just to rent suscribers a box
for 30 euros 27
per month in the end, Meetic 28
on the other hand could sell a mere couple of entries in a database
for the same price, they litterally fell on their ass !

Moreover,
Meetic suscribers are delighted with it !
Meetic is never complained about, while ISPs are all the time. Have
you ever read anything against Meetic in consumer reviews ? I
never have. On
the other hand, I read complaints against network operators all the
time.

Obviously,
operators are getting the impression that while they’re doing
real work for 30 euros, others just dick around for 30 euros too,
and they’re getting to wondering who’s got the best
business...

After
trying in vain to come up with equivalent services, they’ve
come to consider defaulting to taxing : « Curiously,
our suscribers’ connection to Meetic seems to work better when
they suscribe to our Meetic Bundle special offer. »
Only little problem : it would show, and sucribers would go and
suscribe somewhere else. So let’s try another approach. Let’s
go see Meetic’s boss and say : « Man, of my
12,000,000
suscribers, so many millions must be single since they use your
website... Now, you see, the link between your network and mine...
hasn’t failed yet. I’m sure you’ll agree it should
remain that way. Would you, maybe, agree to cover its
maintenance costs ? ...Say
what ? How much ? Ah – a lot. Yes,
it’s a very fragile link – lots of maintenance required. »

Do
you think Meetic will go along with that ?
–
With 20%
of their sales in the balance, I bet they will !

That’s
one temptation. Yet, to make a link fail when the guy at the other
end refuses to give in to racketeering, is harming network
neutrality.

3. Pre-empt
the whole thing :
they can be tempted to do that, too. Negotiations are messy, they’re
lengthy, and they leave prints you’d rather avoid when dealing
dirty. It’s far simpler to buy the whole thing up. Let’s
buy up one of the profitable ones –
then suddenly the link becomes very cheap and easy to maintain. And
access to its competitors becomes somewhat impractical – or
impossible. In plain : you, a competitor’s suscriber, can
go suck it.

Example
application : I’d set up my own VOD 29
platform, from which you can buy the films I decide, for a price I
set –
and then when you try to access a free public VOD platform through
the Internet, that somehow won’t be working too well : the
connection would be slow, the video stream would hiccup –
nothing intentional, of course, but curiously that link won’t seem as
well "maintained" as some others.

Today
we don’t see too much of that, precisely because it would
show. Let’s hope it doesn’t become legal ! 30

4. Capture
consumers.
...As I said before : you think you’re paying for access
to the Internet, but it isn’t so. What you’ve done is
sell out your consumer’s habits. This is the model they aspire
to : you
paying for the selling of your own available brainshares. 31

Their
main goal is to restrict competition, by either taxing, pre-empting,
or capturing customers. All this amounts to impeding competition.

When
your computer is only compatible with the modem you’ve been
sold, which accesses only one operator’s network, which gives
you access only to videos for which that operator has an exclusivity
deal, you’ll have a hard time getting out of there. It’ll
take buying another computer. Since your Orange computer will have
access, through Orange, to Orange videos and Meetic Orange, would you
decide to move to SFR, you’ll need an SFR computer, abling you
to watch SFR videos, and suscribe to Meetic SFR – where you
can’t hit on the same girls.
That would be extremely tiresome. Yet,
that’s the idea of a non-neutral network : depending on
your access point, you don’t see the same Internet.

Besides,
it’s a backstep to the past : closed, proprietary, and
possibly centralized networks... The
opposite of the Internet ! 32

Another
major type, among those who seek control over the Internet, are those
long-used to detaining the monopoly of public speech.

The
following quote isn’t famous, because it’s mine :

The
printing press has made readers of the people.
The Internet will make them writers.

(B.
Bayart)

(I
blurted that out to some journalist, without paying real attention.
It’s my mother, reading the article, who told me : « hey,
that’s a great quote. » So thanks, Mom.)

At
last we reach much higher considerations !

Another
quote I’m fond of :

Do
you realize that, on the Internet,
about anybody can say just anything !

(a
representative, at theAssemblée Nationale)

I
don’t remember who exactly bawled this at the Assemblée,
but I was there, in the audience, and I know it was an elected
representative ! It was around 10pm, so I suppose he had
fatigue for an excuse...

So
he finds apalling that anybody can say anything. Me, it rather
reminds me of Article 11... In fact, I find myself in agreement :
Do
you realize that Article 11 of the Declaration of Rights of Man and
Citizen is, finally, more than two centuries later, technically
applicable ! How
interesting.
He seemed to see that as a problem, while I see it as a solution...
Let’s just say our opinions diverge.

Whom
does monopoly of public speech impact ? Politicians,
obviously.

The
most magnificent example we’ve seen so far –
and I’m saying this even though I voted in favor – is the
referendum on the European constitutional treaty 33. 95%
of the whole political class had kept repeating we had to vote in
favor. About 90%
of all conventional media – TV,
radio, newspapers – had kept repeating we had to vote in favor.
The debate didn’t take place over conventional medias. There
has been no real debate there : no structured discussion, no
educated argument, whatsoever. The only place to host such debate has
been the Internet. The only place where you could see a negative
response coming was on the Internet. And it wasn’t, as the media
claimed, a temperamental response : it was a
structured answer, based on solid, valid arguments – about
which nobody here gives a damn, but, when the people rejected the
treaty, they did it based on serious arguments. (I know, because I
read those discussions. Whether I argee with them is beside the
point.)

So
the monopoly of public speech concerns politicians.
They’ve
been despoiled of it.

Before,
their position was that of a white knight, having climbed down his
horse to listen to yokels, riding back to the Assemblée to
represent them. In those times, the average yokel (the good voter)
had no real say. All he could say was to himself : well, a
majority of representatives think so, so it must mean a majority of
the people think so, and since a majority of the media say so too,
then I guess it must be so. Even if he wasn’t happy personally,
there was no chance he could read a different opinion.

Today,
when someone,
anyone, is not happy with something, they open a blog (titled, say,
Not Happy !)
in which they explain in articles what they’re unhappy about
and why. And, as soon as their arguments present some interest –
sure, as long as it stays limited to « Not
Happy ! »
it won’t prompt much – but as soon as their
arguments are a bit founded, a bit articulated, they are directly
eating on the politicians’ plate !

See
for yourselves : every politician has now tried setting up their
own blog. The worst among them get about 12 hits a day, and the best
a few thousands. But a successful blog in French language gets tens
or hundreds of thousands hits a day !
And, to give you an idea, 100,000 hits is more than the combined
daily sales of all newspapers in France...

Politicians
are very afraid of this because they feel despoiled.

Not
to mention the impression we’ve made at the Assemblée,
during the HADOPI discussions !

Picture
this : standing up the backmost tribune, not allowed to utter or
mutter word, applause or even nod our heads when we hear an
intelligent remark. We were allowed nohing.

And
yet, we were there the whole time, watching.

They
had never seen that, ever.

What
struck me is that, when the week before, they passed working on
Sundays, a rather controversial bill, which should have triggered all
unions’ uproar –
which has
triggered it – but not just an opposition : the
employers’ union could have shouted it up, just as workers’
unions have shouted it down – but, anyway, neither side was
present in the tribunes. Representatives were discussing it among
themselves, unbothered. The Opposition honorably opposed (but for who ?)
and of course the law was passed without much fuss.

When
we came for HADOPI, not only were we in the tribunes, but we were on
internet as well – we were sending mails right as we stood
there. Every
time a representative said something stupid, he was sure to get,
within the next fifteen minutes, a hundred emails explaining in
profuse technical details why he was wrong. And,
amongst representatives of the Opposition, those who wanted to go
against the text were amazed by how much quality information we could
provide them with. In short, it had been a very long time since, in a
parliamentary debate, deputies had more and better advisers than the
ministers ! The usual opposers, Martine Billard, Patrick Bloche,
Christian Paul, Jean-Pierre Brard, Lionel Tardy, etc., could count on
litterally hundreds of technical advisers : people
sending mail from their home, explaining them how to structure their
argument – and which was the right argument, why one argument
wasn’t valid, why such other was better articulated, etc. These
people were teachers, engineers, researchers, network specialists...
among the brightest in the matter. Much
brighter than what the governement usually counts on !

(
That the governement usually makes law based on incompetent advisers
is not only ridiculous, it is a real democratic problem ! )

Who
else is concerned ? Journalists.

Before,
would you want to read an in-depth article about a given subject, you
had to wait for Le Monde 34to
feature an extended report on the matter. Now all you have to wait is
for any enthousiast to have tackled the subject. And when an
enthousiast tackles the subject, he or she makes an arm-length post
on their blog... If
you’re interested, you can go and read it right away.

So
we’ve taken that job away from journalists.

They
are very unsettled by the work we achieve by ourselves – they
should be, too.

We
still need journalists besides, but not for this – not anymore.

Columnists
are having the worst of it : here are people who have only their
opinion to sell. I have opinions, plenty. I can post some on my blog,
you can have them for free. I
don’t see why mine should be any less fun than theirs.

Me,
for example, I’d rather read Maître Eolas’ blog 35 than
Whatshisname’s column (let’s not name anybody, let’s
not make more ennemies) – I find it funnier and more
instructive.

And
then, representatives of all kinds :

If
I were Bernard Thibault 36,
I would worry. Judging by the difference in the way parliamentary
discussions went, between Sunday working and HADOPI, one force
definitely seems more modern than the other.

Paradoxally,
the modern way is going back to the basics : when a law
disagrees with you, go discuss it with your elected representative.
When discussion isn’t enough, insist. Come, listen, let them know
you are there.

During
the first passing of HADOPI, Albanel 37
would regularly favor us with crestfallen stares, apparently
wondering... « who
the fuck are they ? ».

What
they’re used to is more like groups of kids, coming, sitting
for half an hour, then leaving, all quiet and orderly –
that’s the traditional school trip : see, children, how
law is made, ain’t that serious, respectable work, Bobby quit
picking your nose, and come on let’s go now.

We,
on the other hand, were twenty adults. We came around six, seven in
the afternoon. We’d sit quietly and stay there until two in the
morning. And, when they adjourned from 12:00 to 12:59, only to
resume at 1:00 and adjourn again at 1:01... we staid.
They couldn’t believe that was happening – it’s
out of their thinking’s range !

Representatives
of all kinds means all those who used to speak on your behalf.

In
the paper-based model, there can’t be more than a few thousand
people to speak publicly. It is a structural limitation : you
simply can’t print that much paper. Would you want to print all
public speech, there wouldn’t be enough forest on the planet to
make paper from, and you’d need a truck to go get your morning
newspaper. Printing all news from the whole Internet every morning
would make a hell-thick newspaper – you
can forget about reading it on the bus.

Anyone
who, when access to public speech was structurally restricted, had
privileged access to it, is now unsettled by the vanishing of those
limitations.

Politicians
would like to keep applying the usual method : call the chief
editor, ask him to shut up the little fucker who published that
article about your ex (I’m not pointing fingers here38) – Except
they can’t.

They find that extremely bothersome...
And they’re having a hard time learning to live with it.

What
are their arguments ?

They obviously can’t
tell you they want to silence the people...

So, what, then ?

A
common argument is war against pedophiles.

This
argument justifies the LOPPSI act39,
Article 4 : blocking of suspected pedophile websites, decreed by
the Minister of the Interior 40.
Not based on a judge’s decision –
no – by
decree of the Minister of the Interior. That
is the head of the police !

I
don’t know about you folks, but as for me, censure
by the head of police’s order
reminds me more of Fouché’s way than it does of
democracy ! 41

Yet,
this is one of their key arguments : we
must protect your children, see ?

Do
you want the corresponding counterarguments ? Here they come :

You
don’t rape children with computers. I’m pretty sure
about that. Blocking access to pedo-pornographic pictures is nice
and all, but it would be far more preferable to prevent children
from ending up on those pictures in the first place. I mean, if the
idea is to protect children, wouldn’t it be more preferable to
catch the perpetrators ?

If
the idea is to fight the mafias that make such pictures their
business, wouldn’t it be far more efficient to abolish banking
secrecy, thus strike them where it really hurts ?

If
you want to protect internet users from accidental access to such
pictures, then provide them with a filter they can choose to install
for themselves, on their own computer. That way, when the extent of
the government-provided blacklist starts seeming abusive, each user
can decide for themself whether they want to leave their personal
filter on or turn it off. That’s keeping intelligence
peripheral –
on the user’s side.

And,
by the way, when asked, the dedicated police department is
positive : there is no pedophile website in France. Oh, yeah,
once or twice a year, one such site opens –
only to get slammed down within the week – within, in fact,
the 24 hours following its detection. And rest assured the
responsible parties end up in jail, big time.

I
repeat : There
is no pedophile website
in France.

So,
what we have here is a law that serves fighting non-existing
criminals.

Then,
there is online betting.

The
first time I heard talking about filtering by decree was at the
Ministry of Economy and Finances, and it was about online betting.
Online betting is forbidden in France, since betting and gambling are
restricted to PMU counters – a state monopoly. An official,
legally sanctioned, state monopoly. So they proposed to filter the
Internet in order to keep people from betting online.
(Even though European directives require deregulation of all kinds of gambling, well... that didn’t seem to bother them.)

And
so : we
must protect people, see ?
Betting and gambling are addictive –
and then you never know, and other excuses... Nevertheless, I never
heard them proposing the closing of PMU counters for people’s
protection. It’s very simple : there are three kinds of
addiction you can buy in a French bar : alcohol, cigarettes,
and PMU products –
all three in more or less unlimited quantities.

Consider
a newbie who just got his first internet subscription three months
ago. He’s still in the « that’s a funny video
Bob sent me there » phase. That wouldn’t
make him less respectable –
he’s just not an internaut yet : what he’s
discovered is an interactive form of TV.

Give
him one year, maybe two, according to statistics, to evolve from
interactive TV
to interactive information. (This doesn’t necessarily implies
political involvement : it could just as well mean sharing
recipes and commenting on them. No kind of information is less noble
than any other.)

The
next step is going from commenting on other people’s content to
creating one’s own content.

At
that crucial point, our newbie (not so newbie anymore) switches from
being a passive consumer to being a producer.

Before
that, it’s a bit like walking the alleys of a department store
and picking what you like best, or dislike least : I wanted a
steel colander but all they had were plastic colanders so I bought
the least ugly one –
but what I really wanted was a steel colander. That’s the
consumer’s way. The internaut’s way is : either I
find and read stuff I like, and possibly comment on it, and maybe
even write short messages to direct my friends to it... Or I don’t
find stuff I like, in which case I write it myself.

Production
methods and thinking habits have been dramatically altered.

In
the internet model : if my opinions aren’t stood for, it’s
only because I haven’t stood for them – yet. Would I care
to at least express them, others would have a chance to ponder them.

This
dramatically changes thinking processes.

By
thinking and acting like internauts, by creating intelligent content
(even though we’re not required to – even
more so !),
we do resist their quest for control.

Criticizing
HADOPI isn’t even necessary. All you’ve got to do is
think and express your thoughts online. That would suffice to render
control of the Internet impossible.

The
immediate next step is clear : once we’ve understood what
the Internet is,
and once we’ve made ours, not an interactive form of television,
off which we could be cut like brats, but that 21st-century
tool for public speech and citizenship, then the idea that someone
would want to damage that tool becomes, of course, absolutely
unbearable and completely unacceptable !

And
once it’s become absolutely unbearable and completely
unacceptable... Well, the Assemblée Nationale is located on
Quai d’Orsay in Paris, and all you need to get in is a
credential that is quite easy to obtain as soon you know and agree
with a few representatives of the Opposition –
which we do. You are therefore all welcome to attend any debate in which
you feel those people are stepping upon your legitimate toes.

If
Not just about internet questions –
about any subject you’re interested in.

If
some of you have qualms about working on Sundays, go to the Assemblée
next time.

*

Let
me summarize my whole point one last time.

What
we were presented was a way to punish children who download too much
music, by cutting them off internet. We’ve seen that the issue
is larger than that. And Sarkozy, who hoped for a quick stab at
copyright-infringement issues (probably just to please his wife 43),
has stepped into something far more serious.

In
fact, the Internet will be one major political issue of the 21st
century. The question of freedom of speech in the 21st
century will keep occuring, and it will occur mainly
on the Internet. In politics, that is not a minor question.

This
can be switched around as well :

The
neutral and open network that we call the Internet, and which makes
democracy possible, has fierce, determined opponents – which
are, at present, in the majority.

Between
them and the public, who doesn’t care because they don’t
quite measure the stakes, there’s no real resistance. 44

*

Now,
if someday you come to wonder whether such or such practice prejudices internet neutrality, that determination is simple :

If
someone tells you the network has become intelligent, then it is not
the Internet anymore.

The
Internet is a stupid network. That's how it works.

Make it clever, and it won't be working that well.

If
someone proposes to solve any given problem, by filtering / blocking
/ whatevering stuff within the network itself, it is by definition
an attack on the network’s neutrality. Only when they propose
a solution that you can choose to turn on or off, that solution
abides to network neutrality.

Let
me give you an example : if I can turn the spam filter on and
off, then the network remains neutral. The network doesn’t get
rid of spam, I do –
by leaving my spam filter on. If it messes up, treats legit emails as
spam and discards them, I only have myself to blame –
and I
can easily make it stop.

If
the solution is user-controlled, then it most probably abides to
network neutrality.

If
the solution assumes intelligence from the network and stupidity on
the user’s side, then it is most probably a wrong solution.
It must be the opposite : clever, autonomous users of a
ridiculously simple-minded network.

Nobody
can severe or restrict your access to the Internet without a judge’s
backing.

It
is now in the Constitution –
since the Constitutional Council usually manages to render their
decisions in agreement with it.

Article
11 of the 1789 Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen says that
cutting or limiting your access to the Internet is about as serious
as putting you in jail. It can’t be considered lightly.

This
has many funny legal consequences ! [Waving his cellphone :]
Take this shit for example. Had I suscribed to the so-called internet
service they provide for it... The restrictions are fantastic !
I wouldn’t be able to access everything I want. Wait –
how could someone who is not a judge decide to limit my access –
even my mobile one – to the Internet ?

You
wouldn’t think so, but the Council’s decision, however
unreadable, goes a very long way... It implies that, by restricting
my internet access, the mobile phone company violates my freedoms of
speech and information.

Q :
Is network filtering a typically European issue or is it worlwide ?

A :
Not even European : it’s a typically French trend. (I
guess we have a tradition of innovation to maintain !) Now,
there are other voices in favor of it in Europe. But they don’t
all propose « intelligent » solutions, and few
are this willing to keep the judges out.

English
authorities have tried filtering the network against child pornography.
It blew up in their face : they ended up filtering Wikipedia !
(A well-known pedophilic site !)
Then they only made it worse by trying to justify themselves...

Other
democratic countries in the world have tried... It only creates new
problems, often quite surrealistic. 45

On
my way here, I was just reading about an American mother who’d
been suspected of abusing her children, thus harrassed for a whole year,
because she had taken pictures of them bathing.

Yeah...
I don’t know the answer to idiocy. Many governments are taking
idiotic actions nowadays and I find that very dangerous...

Australia,
for example, recently gave in to the argument of blocking child abuse
websites. So they first
blocked some actual child porn, then they extended their blocking
to bad-taste porn (wherefrom it all depends on which side of that
somewhat blurred moral fence your taste fall), then to websites
explaining how to circumvent the block, and then to websites
revealing that the government was blocking websites explaining how to
circumvent the block... So they soon ended up blocking Wikileaks and
even foreign news... ! At which point, since it was beginning
to show, they quit.

When their blacklist leaked to
the public, there was only about 40% porn in it, and hardly
any real child porn.
The police or court order rendering access to those sites illegal
never existed – so if some were commercial activities (earning
on advertisement or whatever), they suffered losses because of the
Australian government’s arbitrary decisions, and this without
any legal backing.

This is completely absurd. It
reminds me of Beaumarchais’s context, France of the 1780s :
a
beleaguered system, defending itself by descending ever further
into violence and idiocy. Now these people believe they still live in
a democracy – a curious notion. 46

In
summits about internet governance, we can see Iran often agrees with
France. That only should make us wonder whether we’re on the
right side of the argument.

In
fact, actually enforcing, just a bit firmly, the decisions in
question here would require no less than the Chinese method. That
is, a method still easily circumvented by those familiar with
computers – but not by others.

Q :
(Indistict
question about The Pirate Bay)

A :
What’s interesting about the Pirate Bay trial, is that The
Pirate Bay is not even a peer-to-peer 47 service !

The
Pirate Bay doesn’t transfer any file part. The
copyright-infringing files never transit through The Pirate Bay. That
website is no more than a directory. All it says is : I’ve
seen a copy of that movie available at that IP address. Which is not
illegal information. What is illegal is the actual copying. But
merely saying : i’ve seen a copy there, is not illegal. At
best, the closest legal definition would be infringement
informing,
which hardly constitutes an offence.

The
judges have ruled that The Pirate Bay was prompting infringement... We
could, in just as bad a faith, argue that it helps fighting
infringement, by identifying offenders. 48

Then
the Swedish press revealed links between the Head of Court and the
record industry 49.
So the judge was representing the copyist monks. That alone should
cast serious doubts upon his ruling !

So
we’ll hear about The Pirate Bay again.

One
consequence of that trial, which has been about as mediatic in Sweden
as the HADOPI bill in France, is that 7% of the Swedish people voted
for the Pirate Party in the next European elections. I personally
feel that the Pirate Party should rather be called the Digital
Freedom Party, because they’re fighting for issues much larger
than the mere right for piracy. Anyway, by hitting the bush too hard, the
copyright lobby has awakened people all across Sweden, and set many
against them.

Look :
it took the environmentalists
20 years to get their first representative elected... And it
took us, what – only 4 years, from enduring the first
signs of legal aggression, to climbing our way into governments !

That’s
rather good, I’d say.

Q :
In a digital economy, as you describe it, there doesn’t seem to
be any remuneration for creators anymore. Do the laws of an abundance
economy necessarily imply creation products to be free of charge ?

A :
No. Creation has no value, only
if you try to apply the laws of scarcity to the digital world.

But
in practice, we’re all used to paying on internet. I’m
not even talking about physical goods you order online. We’ve
all paid for digital services : online news, online dating,
online porn...

(Yeah,
you can smile. Considering how lucrative online porn is, there must
be customers somewhere ! [Audience
laughs; someone says: not here.] What ?
Not here ? Yeah, right. It’s a well known fact there’s
no sexual frustration among computer nerds ! ...Conceded, nerds
may be clever enough to find their way around paying.)

Digital
services do have value. But how this value is estimated cannot be
devised from 18th-century
economy. We need a new economic paradigm.

Likewise,
how we must re-think royalties in the 21st
century is a key issue.

However,
it is not one of FDN’s issues, neither was it the subject of
this conference.

Let’s
just say there are many proposed new models, many models still being
elaborated, and, surely, many other possible models we haven’t
come up with yet. All propose innovative ways to remunerate creators
– some revolutionary, some transitional. 50

Copyright, author’s rights and royalties are a very complex topics : playwrights, musicians, teachers
are all treated differently. I see no reason why it would become
simpler in the digital world. If anything, it’s rather bound to
get even more complex. But artists
have to seize this opportunity and take active part in the process –
for their own sake they do. 51

Now,
getting involved doesn’t mean to pressure governements for a
return to the 18th-century
situation.
That can never work.

Q :
You gave the example of Meetic having to give up a percentage of its
revenue to ISPs, and explained how it could become a generalized
non-neutral network model... Is there a structural way to
prevent that ? Can’t the control organizations you described
in your preliminary summary do something about it ?

A :
No. It is not their place to arbitrate here, because the problem
isn’t technical in nature : everything works as network
operators intend it to. Those organizations deal with technical
issues, not commercial attitudes, no matter how outraging.

To
this date, there aren’t many tools to keep ISPs from
racketeering.

I
don’t see of what nature such tools could be, if not legal. Law
would be the best way, in my opinion, to fight that trend off. 52

In
France, article L32.1 of the code
des communications électroniques
lists network operators’ obligations, among which :
respect of absolute network neutrality. There’s no detail, no
explanation, the scope being rather general, but at
least the principle is there.

In
the USA, how to regulate those issues is now the core stake of the
FCC’s work, as initiated by that guy I’ve
quoted parts of last monday’s speech of. 53

I
can only encourage you, provided you understand English, to surf
fcc.gov and find the chairman’s interview... I can never
remember the exact URL... Look for their « Open Internet »
link and go from there. There they explain their work at length.

That
is, finally, the issues about which we, advocates of an open
Internet, fight commercial operators in the European Parliament ring,
regarding their TV/phone/Internet
bundle : we want to see which commercial attitudes should be
allowed, and which should not, clearly defined.

We
try to pressure the Parliament and explain representatives that
absolute network neutrality should not even be negotiable, and why –
that is, why it is such a grave issue.

We’re
having a real hard time getting through. This in part because
we’re having a real hard time being many. 54

Oh,
yeah, we are many activists, off the ring. Collectives across the 27
EU countries communicate among themselves in a very quick, very
efficient way. To give you an idea : debates around HADOPI in
France were relayed to Sweden with less than a 3 minutes lag.
French online articles about issues such as network neutrality are
generally translated into English and/or Swedish in less than 24
hours. We’re fanatics. And we follow the issue very, very
closely.

And
believe me, the Constitutional Council’s ruling was celebrated
across all Europe ! Because the question whether the Internet
is a luxury toy or a serious tool is now settled. A legitimate
authority settled it, based on the Declaration of Rights of Man and
Citizen. Very few in Europe will dare say otherwise now
That ruling will weigh considerably in the balance !

Q :
Tampering with bandwidth, like attributing it selectively, can be a
way to control information through hindering its flow. After all,
network operators can do what they want with their own
infrastructure. So, are there ways to prevent this ?

A :
Yes there are.

Look
at it this way : legally, I’m not allowed to slit people’s
throats, even in my own kitchen.

Note
that it doesn’t mean there’s any need for the governement
to install cameras in my kitchen. Granted,
if I slit a throat or two now and then, I might very well get away
with it. But if I start making a habit of it, I’ll get caught
eventually.

Similarly,
if an ISP abuses the network once in a while, it might go unnoticed.
But if such abuse becomes systematic, it will show. If it does show
while it’s forbidden, then they’ll get into trouble.
That’s the principle we call law.

I
can’t suggest better than sensible law – and then hope
that ISPs will choose to stay entrepreneurs rather than becoming a
mob. (In their sector, I believe they need to maintain a respectable
façade in order to sell their stuff. If they don’t,
we’ll have to fight that particular mob as we do others. But I’m
pretty sure they’ll abide by the law. A little bending of the
rules here and there, yes, but no gross, outright infringement –
like the so-called unlimited 3G they’re selling now, for
example, which is a bad joke.)

So,
yes, network operators can tamper with the information flow, but
under sensible law they won’t.

Q :
What about faculties blocking or filtering students’ access to
some services ?

I
can’t access my Jabber account from here...

A :
Of course you can. You just don’t know how is all !
[Laughs.]

...They
don’t block SSH 55,
right ?
Then you can bounce and access anything you want through.

But,
to answer your question seriously...

You’re
an adult now. It’s the University’s network, and the
University does what they want with it. You didn’t suscribe to an
Internet access by them, did you ? You suscribed to an
education, under some conditions, and they let you access their
network as part of that. Not the Internet – their
network. Which happens to be connected to the Internet through a series of filters that belong to them
thus they’re entitled to configure as they fancy.

When
I invite friends to my place, they can use my internet access only to
the extent I let them. I didn’t sell them internet access :
I may
grant them partial use of mine. Likewise, there’s no contract
between you and the University binding them to provide you with a
neutral access to the Internet.

Now,
there are some things the University is still not allowed to do...
The law forbids any violation of private correspondance. But that’s
entirely different. Denying you access to it is one thing, violating
it is one other. A violation would mean to read it, or to tamper with
it. For example : automatically appending a signature to every
mail of yours, that says « this mail was sent
through the Université
de Rennes I's
network », is tampering with private correspondance and
carries a penalty of several years imprisonment – as any civil
servant should know. So, if they do that here, you should go tell
your sysadmin that it’s not a good idea.

All
This being said, I find it particularly stupid for the University to
deny you access to Jabber. You should bounce through protocol SSH. If
you don’t know where to, I’ll be delighted to create an
account for you at FDN – provided you keep abiding by the
University’s rules, which don’t forbid landline calls.

Q :
How do you consider the evolution of huge service providers such as
Google ?
Is there a risk of them somehow taking over control of the
Internet ?

A :
Yes, of course there is.

Google
falls into the powerful irresponsible category.

There
is, at present, nothing more central than Google – hence,
nothing more dangerous.

Curiously,
they are about the cleanest, most neutral party I’ve witnessed.
I can’t explain why. Here we have a stock market company,
weighing billions, and yet displaying such good behaviour towards the
Network !
About issues like privacy, social responsability, stock holder
policy... I can’t say. But as far as network neutrality is
concerned, they’ve always behaved impeccably.

Moreover,
when we go explain our governments that a neutral network is the only
suitable environment for a possible European competitor to Google to
ever grow in, Google backs us up ! Not
just behind the scene : it is Google’s official position,
that in a non-neutral network, they could never have become what they
have – while all other major companies go with the usual
opposite argument : « would networks remain neutral,
we may have to cut jobs eventually... » 56

Now,
if one company is really in position to become Big Brother 57,
it’s Google.

Their
position, in terms of privacy, information, and access to
information, is much, much too central – hence very
problematic.

For
now, they haven’t given us too much to complain about. That
must have something to do with the fact that the present bosses are
still the original founders. When that changes – when the next
bosses get appointed by an investment fund – then it’s
gonna hurt real, real bad.

Google
is a time bomb.

They
just haven’t turned evil yet.

Q :
Can encrypted networking be a response to control ?

A :
Yes.

It’s
like, in physics, the law of action and reaction. When I press down
on this desk, the desk presses back up my hand.

Internet
has an action on society. As pressure grows (as we win), the old
society reacts accordingly.

It
can get ugly. Even the majority was surprised by the virulence of the
HADOPI debates – in the Assemblée, but also in the
press. The press can be particularly insulting to our side. And every
time we’re being insulted, I feel great !

We’ve
been called murderers – terrorists !
(Man,
we’re just enjoying music... And the Constitutional Council
validates our argument.)

That
violence only indicates the degree to which we’re changing
society. And the more the violence against us, the more radical our
response will be.

Indeed,
the logical response to filtering is encryption. Encryption will be
the Network’s massive response to idiotic LOPPSI-like laws –
the « decreed by the Ministry of the Interior »
kind of law, supposedly aimed at online gamblers, pedophiles, and
radical autonomous anarcho-leftist terrorists.

Then,
when encryption becomes commonplace, tracing us radical autonomous
anarcho-leftists will be much harder – and so will,
incidentally, tracing real terrorists.

But
it won’t be a response to HADOPI. I
expect responses to HADOPI to be much more fun – much more on
the schoolkid joke’s side... There are so many loopholes !
So many idiotic but perfectly valid interpretations of the law,
according to which we can do many things !

Q :
There's now a race between official orators, the
powerful irresponsible, DVD-copyist monks on one side, and society.
The new generation seems raised to buy whatever they’re told to
buy, use what they’re told to use, consume whatever is put in
front of them, and ignore anything besides. What are the real chances
for them to become internauts then
?

A :
Very high. The chances are very high. Anyhow.

Let’s
indulge in one more parallel with the printing press.

Back
in the 16th century,
the new printing press was bridled as hell : it remained a royal
privilege until the 18th century.
58

Yet,
that didn’t prevent the French Revolution.

Beaumarchais
went to prison because he wrote, about the King : Only
little men fear little writings.
That didn’t keep him from becoming a pillar of American
Independance and Constitution — which remains, to this day, a
model constitution. And imprisonment certainly didn’t keep
Beaumarchais from being a trigger for the French Revolution.

Only
little men fear little writings... Too
bad for our leaders, here, but there’s a real chance that we
win, no matter what. 59

At
best, they may win a little, in the short run – after all,
they’re still holding the reins for now.

Q :
But can people still learn from a filtered network ?

A :
Yes, definitely they can.

Internet,
no matter how filtered, is being a democratic factor in China today.

The
reason is simple : it’s a knowledge-spreading tool.

Filtering
doesn’t prevent you from accessing mankind’s total
knowledge on, say, particle physics or biochemistry. Filtering is
just supposed to keep you away from dissident thoughts. As long as
you don’t meddle with politics, you’re free to read and
educate yourself all around.

And
when you get educated – even though you never read anything
political – you start thinking. And when you think, well...
Soon or later, you’ll come to think something different from
what the system would like you to think.

As
the saying goes : to
think is to disobey.

And
you can’t have self-educated people who don’t think.

There
is of course one way to prevent that – it is costly but
feasible : prohibit internet, printing and
reading. Let’s call that the Burmese way.

Short
of it, I don’t see what could avert the present tsunami.

Q :
Are you really that an optimist ? Don’t you fear Orwellian
scenarios 60 ?
Don’t you believe in the Internet giving rise to a brainwashed
generation ?

A :
I think the Internet averts it, on the contrary.

Of
course, knowledge can spread slowly just as it can fast. But I don’t
see how it could recede at this point – short of global
prohibition of internet, printing, writing and reading.

This
conference was organised by two local collectives, Actux and
Gulliver, usually dealing in free software, a topic only remotely
related to Benjamin’s concerns here –

Speaker
Benjamin Bayart :

– Only
Remotely
related ? Sorry, but – I can’t let you say that.

Indeed,
I’ve read some were reluctant to invite me because they felt we
deal in unrelated issues, that internet issues were outside the scope
of a free software convention...

I
can’t disagree more !

The
free software society works just like the Internet, and the Internet
works just like the free software society. That’s because free
software and internet are not two distinct phenomenae.

They
are, in fact, two sides to one same object – which shall
call the Society of Knowledge, or Economy of
Knowledge. That’s the society of the 21st century,
our society, in which we must win the fight for our fundamental
freedoms.

Dates
and growth rates coincide. Had protocol TCP/IP not been patent-free,
the Internet could never have happened. And, had there been no free
internet, the kind of collaboration that allows for free software
could not have token place either.

Without
free software, no Internet. And without Internet, no free software.

1.
ISP stands for Internet Service Provider, usually providing
Internet access to the public for a fee.

1.
In this conference,
the more generic term network operator will also be used.
ISPs are a common kind of operator.

2.
Except where the context obviously implies otherwise, occurrences of
the word free in this conference are to be understood as in
free speech (in French : libre). Sometimes the
word open will be used, which has a neighbouring meaning.

3.
A quick summary of Minitel 2.0(not at all necessary for understanding the present
conference, but still valuable since there is to this date no
complete translation available) : the Internet is a weblike network,
which means a network without a center. That’s what makes it
so robust (you can’t kill it by aiming for the heart since
there is no heart), so flexible, and so democratic. The present
trend that tends to group websites on big servers (or server
clusters), or centralize information at Google, people’s
videos at YouTube and DailyMotion, individuals’ blogs on
websites hosting thousands of them, etc., is the opposite of the
Internet’s spirit, and goes against its innate structure.
There is no structural limitation preventing anyone from hosting
everything they want to share or communicate on their own connected
computer, at home. Unfortunately, a recent commercial trend tends to
technically impede such home hosting, and make centralization a
better practical solution for unaware individuals which are used to
a passive consumer’s attitude and more centralized networks
such as TV. That implies fragility (all eggs in same basket),
bottlenecks (data traffic congestion), and a greater vulnerability
to government or corporate control.
It also raises privacy issues (third parties hosting your correspondance and data).

He also asserts that peer-to-peer applications, while often used in
a legally questionable manner, are closest to the open spirit of the
Internet, since they inherently fit its centerless structure,
instead of using it as a mere support for centralized subnetworks
(like Facebook, Gmail, MSN, ISPs, and probably most of what you are
used to).

4.HADOPI
is the nickname of a French anti-piracy law focusing on file sharing
over the internet. That law proposes the creation of an
administrative authority labeled HADOPI. It was the inspiration for
the American SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act), and stirred controversy
in France just as it did in the U.S. Finally, by the time of this
translation, the law was passed in France (while rejected in the
USA) and two administrative bodies vere created : HADOPI and CDP.
However, opposition was so strong that the resulting law and
procedure are little more than mere intimidation, and unapplicable, according to
this lawyer.
Nevertheless, domestic connexions can now legally be monitored for file sharing in France. To this day, HADOPI remains the common nickname for that whole
control procedure.

5.
Further on, the exact phrase IP address will be used instead
of just address.

6.
Domain names look like this : domainname.com ,
anyname.org , whatever.ca , ... They each correspond
to an address. While IP-addresses are just numbers, domain names are
meant to be their representation in a more human-friendly form. (This
explanation is of course somewhat simplified. That one is not.)

9.
Having a say does not depend on any formal rule. It just means that
others will want to listen to you. Just like not having a say only
means others won’t be so interested in listening to you.

10.
HADOPI was the inspiration for the U.S. SOPA bill. They are similar in many ways,
except HADOPI was passed while SOPA was not.

11.
Denis Olivennes is a French businessman (in the media and media
retail sectors, for the most part) and statesman. He presented the
Minister of Culture and Communication Christine Albanel his memo Le
développement et la protection des œuvres culturelles
sur les nouveaux réseaux, which inspired HADOPI. Nicolas
Sarkozy was French president from 2007 to 2012. (Not that names
matter much here...)

12.
In practice, what would happen if one network started messing up ? The most likely outcome is that other networks
would simply disconnect from it in order to keep working together.

13.
Here, the translator took some liberty. What Benjamin Bayart
actually says is : The directly opposite example would be
the Minitel.

13.Minitel was the common name for a videotex network
that was as wide-spread in France as the landline phone network,
during the decade preceeding the vulgarisation of the Internet. The
then-national phone company operated it. Phone and Minitel came
together as a bundle subscription. Service providers would be
clients of the phone company too (though another kind of clients, at
another end), and you would pay for their services by the minute,
being charged for them through your monthly phone bill. It was an
asymmetrical, centralized network. The central server’s was the
phone company’s, and your Minitel terminal was a rather
passive client (later on refered to as a "stupid
client"). Hence the title of B. Bayart’s previous
conference «Internet libre ou Minitel 2.0 ?»
which could translate as «Open Internet or Minitel 2.0 ?».
(See note #3
for a summary of that conference.)

15.
An example of asymmetrical network would be the water distribution
network : producers and consumers’ roles are defined
structurally and can’t easily be swapped. (B. Bayart gives
this example in several other conferences.)

16.Interviewed by ARCEP on 5/24/2010, B. Bayart pleads the lawmakers to
state exactly what can be legally sold under the internet label –
just like you can’t sell everything as beef.

17.
That freedom of competition relies on network neutrality also
concerns merchants not dealing in internet products but using
the Internet as a market place : only network neutrality guarantees
small merchants fair access to the public, alongside large
retailers. It also concerns independant artists, people trading
knowledge, thoughts or opinions... which in the end means
everybody.

18.
Christine Albanel, promoter of HADOPI, was President Nicolas
Sarkozy’s Minister of Culture and Communications.

21.
For coherence, it was decided not to translate the French phrase droit d’auteur into its English counterpart, copyright, but rather litterally into author’s rights.

21.
While the former has a commercial connotation, the latter tends to evoke single-person creators like artists or teachers. Although it is true that Anglo-Saxon law is more protective of industries, and French law of individual authors, both overlap significantly – especially from the public's point of view. In both cultures, copyright holding lobbies tend to use individual authors' sake as an argument for defending their own interests – an argument Benjamin Bayart opposes in this chapter.

21.
Keeping the translation litteral also renders more evident that everything Bayart states here about copyright is based on French law or specific to French history. It remains of interest to the Anglo-Saxon reader, though, because, while historical differences in the balance of powers have led to somewhat different laws, the issues, interests and arguments have always been, and still remain, the same in both cultures.

21.
Those legal differences may progressively fade away anyway, each law now influencing the other toward harmonization.

22.
Maybe richer too, for there are other ways of earning money than
selling.

23.
How are they wrong again ? In his 1939 short story Life-Line,
American writer Robert A. Heinlein proposed a simple and
straightforward way to look at it : « There
has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the
notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of
the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are
charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future,
even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public
interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor
common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to
come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped or
turned back, for their private benefit. »

25.
From an online service, website, or content publisher’s point
of view, each ISP detains monopoly of access to its own suscribers.
From a global point of view, what ISPs have together is an
oligopoly (a market dominated by a small group of sellers).

26.
DRM (Digital Right Management) is any technology that inhibits uses
of digital content that are not desired or intended by the content
provider. It makes each copy of a work a specific instance destined
to a specifc device. It can carry any other restriction, like time
contraints, for example. Companies such as Amazon, AOL, Apple Inc.,
the BBC, Microsoft and Sony use digital rights management. In 1998
the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) was passed in the United
States to impose criminal penalties on those who make available
technologies whose primary purpose and function is to circumvent
content protection technologies. (source : Wikipedia.) Such
acts are being discussed in Europe as well.

For now, DRMs as copy
protection for films and music are in decline, mainly because they
turned out as impractical to the publisher as to the end-user, and
there soon truned out to be a strong demand for hassle-free, that is
DRM-free, media from legitimate customers. We’ll see what’s
in store for the future...

30.
This is obvious irony. As of this translation, we see a lot of that.
Such practices have become common place in France, and can be found
in other countries as well. It’s certainly not illegal, and
never has been. There is no law requiring network neutrality –
yet. Benjamin Bayart and his peers have been trying to
promote such law – with no luck yet.
(UPDATE : While the situation hasn’t changed in France,
during the writing of this translation, in May 2012, The Netherlands
passed a law just like that.)

31.
That phrase is a reference to Patrick Le Lay’s, president of
TF1, the most profitable French television network, memorable quote :
« Let’s get real for a second : our business at
TF1 is helping Coca-Cola sell their products. [...] Now, for
advertisement to be assimilated, the viewer’s brain must be
made ready to listen. That’s what our shows are there for:
to entertain, relax and open brains between commercial messages. Our
real business is to sell Coca-Cola available brain shares.» (in Les Dirigeants face au changement,
collective work, éditions du Huitième Jour, July
2004). This defines what is also known as neuromarketing.

31.
It could also be said
that, when paying suscribers use their Internet access to click
Facebook’s like or Google’s +1 buttons,
they’ve paid to work as advertisers themselves (just like they
do in the physical world when harboring brand logos on their car or
clothes), in addition to feeding marketing agents (Facebook and
Google’s real clients) with live statistics.

32.
A more accurate translation (but less clear to the foreign reader)
would be : Reverting to a Minitel-like network, they would
rather like that. Yet, it would be the opposite of internet.

33.
The French referendum on the Treaty establishing a Constitution for
Europe was held on 29 May 2005 to decide whether France should
ratify the proposed Constitution of the European Union. The result
was a victory for the "No" campaign, with 55%
of voters rejecting the treaty on a turnout of 69%.
France's rejection of the Constitution left the treaty with an
uncertain future.

39.
LOPPSI stands for Loi d’Orientation et de
Programmation pour la Performance de la Sécurité
Intérieure : Law of programming
and redirection for the efficiency of homeland security.

40.
In British terms, that would be the Home Secretary (and the
French Interior Ministry is equivalent to the British Home
Office). In U.S. terms, that would cover the positions of
Secretary of the Interior and Secretary of Homeland Security.

41.
Joseph Fouché (1759-1820), an opportunistic and (sometimes
arbitrarily) repressive figure in French history, was Minister of
the Interior and then Minister of the Police, which are two
consecutive designations for basically the same job under different
regimes, within the first two decades following the French
revolution.

42.
Find definitions of Internauthere and here.
Basically, it means Internet user, and often more specifically experienced net surfer.

43.
Right after becoming president, Nicolas Sarkozy divorced his wife
Cécilia and remarried millionnaire songwriter and singer
Carla Bruni, being the first French president to exhibit his affairs
in such frivolous fashion.

44.
That has changed a bit in 2012, with the growing of worldwide
movements such as Anonymous and many others, and, in Europe, the
unexpected and sudden citizens’ fight against the ACTA
project. However, each time an internet-briddling proposal is
rejected, another seems to pop up at a higher level.

45.
In 2012, weeks before the elections, a German political party’s
website got automatically blocked in all German schools. More
specifically, it was the election program of that party that was
censored, under the category "illegal drugs", because
among other proposals they wanted to reopen the debate over
marijuana prohibition. It is worth noting that the blacklist was
provided by a foreign commercial company – the German
government used that argument to deny responsability in its own
censoring. As for the censored party, they pointed out that, when
automatic censure is involved, prohibiting something and
forbidding the mere questioning of its prohibition soon come
alarmingly close.

47.
Peer-to-Peer applications (see note #3),
or P2P, are applications connecting directly from client to client,
that is, from one user’s computer to one or many others,
without relaying through a central server. It’s most
advertised use is for file sharing (in practice, often for the
sharing of files containing copyrighted material such as music, film
or software, which gives the whole model a debatable reputation),
though that model can and could support many other kinds of
applications.

47.The Pirate Bay is a Swedish-based website providing P2P
services through P2P technology BitTorrent. The 2009 Pirate Bay
trial in Sweden was as mediatic as the more recent Megaupload case
worldwide. Note that Megaupload is not a P2P service : it is
merely a server-based platform allowing for the uploading,
downloading and straming of movie files. That structural difference
is also a legal one : while both website’s founders argue
that they merely provide a service for file sharing, waiving any
responsability as for the content of said files, Megaupload and its
associate websites actually host(ed) the concerned files within
their servers, while The Pirate Bay (and other BitTorrent websites)
merely point to the files which remain scattered on people’s
domestic computers. Thus, for a judge to go after whoever has a
copyright infriging copy of a work in their possession, it was
fairly easy to go after the owners of Megaupload, while it remains
very hard to go after each individual user of The Pirate Bay. This
is why French HADOPI proponents (or American SOPA proponents) tried
to dipense with the judges, and are considering intelligent (that
is, automatic) solutions.

48.
Except The Pirate Bay’s developers have clearly picked their
side in coming up with technical ways to hinder the indentifying of
its users...

49.
From mashable.com :
"Initially reported by Sveriges Radio, [the Judge in the recent
Pirate Bay trial] Tomas Norström is a member of Svenska
föreningen för upphovsrätt (Swedish Copyright
Association), although he is not listed at the website of this
organization. Other members of this organization are Henrik Pontén,
Peter Danowsky and Monique Wadsted, all closely tied to the
entertainment industry and/or representing their interests. Monique
Wadsted, for example, was directly involved in the Pirate Bay trial.
Furthermore, Norström is reported to sit on the board of
Svenska föreningen för industriellt rättsskydd
– Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial
Property; this at least can easily be checked on their website."

50.
This last paragraph is the translator’s pure invention.
Instead, Benjamin tries to describe a theoretical model known as
global patronage, which he admits not grasping
entirely.

51.
And teachers, and researchers, ...
As for artsts, musicians already have – they were the first group to autonomize themselves through internet,
and create a new model for themselves through dedicated websites. (example).
Others follow. (example).

52.
A lot has happened during the course of this conference’s
translation, the most notable progress being this new law in Holland
defining and protecting network neutrality (see notes #30
and #44).
French-speaking readers may find further insight here.